[BlueDragon]

The sentence leading to all this back-and-forth;

One first has to realize that the foundational precept of Protestantism is that the Church has no legitimate authority.

As for reading anything in...what projection? just because it wasn't said word-for-word it in that one statement to which I was commenting?

I was speaking towards the greater positional postulations. In the context of the wider conversation on merely this thread alone, you have referred to infallible authority in regards to canon. That is opposed to the allegation that "Protestants" claim the RCC has "no" authority.

Protestants generally do not dispute all which the RCC proclaims to be indisputable truth, nor can preach & teach those truths. That is the middle ground.

Hence using "no" in the context you did, linking it to "legitimate" [authority, which is otherwise implied to not only exist, but to be infallible] leaves one seeing "infallible authority" as is otherwise claimed far and wide to be the RCC's sole due.

The opposed postulates are self-contained, when taken in overall context of other statements of your own. Notice also I also passed judgement on those Protestants whom would say "no", for that word "no" is an absolute. Just to be fair...for no one Protestant, or even a small crowd, speak for all. Authoritatively.

Hence the postulates of the opening sentence of #418 were flawed...leading to that which was based upon that premise to be unworthy, according to your own rules as previously claimed applied to others.

syl·lo·gism /ˈsiləˌjizəm/
Noun

An instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given or assumed propositions (premises); a common or middle...
Deductive reasoning as distinct from induction.

It was there along along, dearie. In the concepts, and thus the associated implied meanings. You continued with;

"For those who invested their identity as being theologically opposed (in protestation) to "Rome" all history and Scripture must be bent to conform to their false premise."

Which is an inherently false statement (for not all Protestant theology is opposed to RCC theology, far from it!) leaving the directly above quote, fitting once again to as I previously said, serving chiefly the interests of polemicists. 2 for 2 is affirmation.

[Natural Law]

"Protestants generally do not dispute all which the RCC proclaims to be indisputable truth, nor can preach & teach those truths."

I did not say that Protestantism disputes all Catholic doctrine, I said what I said; "the foundational precept of Protestantism is that the Church has no legitimate authority."

I stand behind it and the content of the posts in response prove it to be a truth.

Peace be with you.